Rumsfeld wrote:So between Murray, Fistric and Alberts, who would be the best fit?
Murray brings ridiculous size and can add a much-needed intimidation factor, but he's a pylon.
Fistric is the best hitter of the group, something we also sorely need, but again he gets burned more often than Meds in a spelling bee.
Alberts might actually be the best option of the three... he's got a combination of all the factors listed above, he's probably more affordable, and he really improved his gap control last season. That said, Alberts is the same ole same ole, and as fans we tend to get more excited about new blood.
You know it's been a boring fucking summer when our biggest personnel decision involves a #6 D-man.
I blame Obama.
Murray would be the 5th D-man for the Canucks, ahead of Tanev, at least I hope... I always hate him when he nailed the Canucks. Like I said before, Murray might be a pylon, but he is a huge pylon. This Canucks team lacks size, grit, and toughness on the backend. Murray brings all that to the table. The only problem is that he probably commands the most out of the three D-men.